• Account
  • Account
    Inquiries
    0

    Inquired items

    0items total Subtotal:$ 0
  • Cart
    Cart

    Inquired items

    items total Subtotal:$ 0

All Departments

Location: Home > Custom Services > Immunology Services > Microorganisms Gene Modification Services

Microorganisms Gene Modification Services

Date: 2019-12-29 Author: Leading Biology Click: 1345

Current Use of Genetically Modified Organisms

Agricultural plants are one of the most commonly cited examples of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Some of the benefits of genetic engineering in agriculture are to increase crop yields, reduce food or drug production costs, reduce the need for pesticides, improve nutritional content and food quality, fight pests and diseases, enhance food security, and health benefits for the benefit of the world's growing population. Progress has been made in the development of crops that mature faster and are resistant to aluminum, boron, salt, drought, frost and other environmental stressfactors so that plants can grow under conditions that would not otherwise grow (table 1, Takeda - Matsuoka, 2008). Other applications include the production of non-protein (bioplastic) or non-industrial (decorative plant) products. Some animals have also been genetically engineered to increase yields and reduce vulnerability. For example, salmon are designed to grow more (Figure 1) and mature faster (Table 1), and cattle have increased resistance to mad cow disease (U.S. Department of Energy, 2007).

 Potential GMO Applications

Many industries will benefit from additional GM research. For example, some microorganisms are considered future clean fuel producers and biodegradants. In addition, genetically modified plants may one day be used to produce recombinant vaccines. In fact, the concept of oral vaccines for direct personal consumption in plants (fruits and vegetables) is being studied as a possible way to spread disease in less developed countries, which will significantly reduce costs associated with mass vaccination campaigns. Plant-derived vaccine candidates for hepatitis B virus (HBV), e. coli (ETEC) and Norwalk virus are being studied in potatoes and lettuce. Scientists are also studying the production of other commercially valuable proteins in plants, such as spider silk proteins and polymers for surgery or tissue replacement (Ma et al., 2003). Genetically modified animals have even been used to grow transplant tissue and human transplant organs, a concept known as xenotransplantation. The rich use of genetically modified organisms offers many valuable benefits to humans, but many are also concerned about the potential risks.


Risks and Controversies Surrounding the Use of GMOs

Although transferred genes naturally occur in other species, there are unknown consequences in altering the natural state of an organism through the expression of foreign genes. After all, this change can change the metabolism, growth rate and/or response to external environmental factors. These consequences affect not only the genetically modified organisms themselves, but also the natural environment in which the organism is allowed to multiply. Potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to intestinal flora.

 

The lateral gene transfer of pesticides, herbicides or antibiotics to other organisms not only puts humans at risk, but also leads to ecological imbalances that allow previously harmless plants to grow uncontrolled, thereby facilitating the spread of disease between plants and animals. While the possibility of horizontal gene transfer between GM organisms and other organisms cannot be denied, in practice the risk is considered to be quite low. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally at a very low rate, and in most cases it is not possible to simulate in an optimized laboratory environment without actively modifying the target genome to increase susceptibility (Ma et al., 2003).

 

In contrast, the alarming consequences of vertical gene transfer between GMOs and their wild-type populations were highlighted by studying genetically modified fish released into wild populations of the same species (Muir & Howard, 1999). The mating advantage of genetically modified fish increases, resulting in a decrease in the viability of their offspring. Thus, when a new gm is introduced into wild fish populations, it spreads and eventually threatens the viability of wildlife and the genetically modified organisms.



 

Unintended Impacts on Other Species: The Bt Corn Controversy

An example of the open debate about the use of genetically modified plants is Bt corn. Bt corn expresses a protein from the bacteriuBacillus thuringiensis. Prior to the construction of recombinant corn, the protein had long been considered toxic to many pests, including caterpillars, and had been successfully used as an environmentally friendly insecticide for several years. The benefit of corn plants expressing this protein is that it reduces the amount of pesticides that farmers must apply to crops. Unfortunately, seeds containing recombinant protein genes can cause unintentional transmission of recombinant genes or exposure of non-target organisms to new toxic compounds in the environment.

 

Now the famous Bt corn controversy began with a laboratory study by Losey et al. (1999), in which the mortality rate of monarch larvae fed with pollen from genetically modified corn (its natural food supply) was higher than when feeding. Covered with pollen from ordinary corn. Following the report by Losey et al., another publication (Jesse & Obrycki, 2000) states that the natural content of Bt corn pollen in the fields is harmful to the monarch.

 

When scientists in other labs disputed the study, the controversy ensued, saying that the pollen concentrations used in the lab's studies were unrealistic and concluding that monarchs' migration patterns did not place them near corn. During this time, it sheds pollen. Over the next two years, six research groups from government, academia and industry investigated the issue and concluded that the risk to the monarch yedoris was "very low" (Sears et al., 2001), providing the basis for the Environmental Protection Agency. Bt corn is approved for a further seven years.

Unintended Economic Consequences

Another concern related to GMOs is that private companies will claim to own the creatures they create, rather than sharing them with the public at a reasonable cost. If these claims are correct, it is argued that the use of GM crops would harm the economy and the environment, since single-planting practices in large agricultural production centers (who can afford expensive seeds) would dominate the diversity of small farmers who cannot afford technology. However, a recent meta-analysis of 15 studies showed that, on average, two-thirds of the benefits of the first generation of GM crops were shared downstream, compared with only one third upstream (Demont et al., 2007). These shares of welfare are reflected in both industry and developing countries. Therefore, the evidence of the first generation of GM crops does not support the argument that private companies will not share the ownership of GMOs.

 GMOs and the General Public: Philosophical and Religious Concerns

A 2007 survey of 1,000 U.S. adults by the International Food Information Council (IFIC) found that 33 percent of respondents thought biotech foods were good for them or their families, but 23 percent did not know that biotech foods were on the market. In addition, only 5 percent of respondents said they would take action by changing their buying habits because of issues related to the use of biotechnology products.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, public acceptance trends in Europe and Asia are uneven due to national and current sentiment at the time of the survey (Hoban, 2004). Attitudes towards cloning, biotechnology and genetically modified products vary depending on the level of education and the interpretation of the meaning of each term. Support for different types of biotechnology varies; however, it is consistently lower when animals are mentioned.

In addition, even if the technology is fairly shared, there are still people who resist expendable GMOs, even if safety is thoroughly tested because of personal or religious beliefs. Ethical issues surrounding genetically modified organisms include the debate over our right to "play God" and the introduction of foreign material into food that abstains for religious reasons. Some people think that tampering with nature is inherently wrong, while others think it is immoral to insert plant genes into animals and vice versa. When it comes to GM foods, those who strongly believe that gmos develop against nature or religion require clear labelling rules so that they can make informed choices about which items to buy. Respecting consumer choice and risk is as important as safeguards to prevent GM products from mixing with non-GMO foods. In order to determine the requirements for such safeguards, it is important to clearly assess what is a genetically modified organism and to reach a general agreement on how to label the product.

These issues are becoming increasingly important as improved laboratory genome-wide sequencing techniques and tools, better process of cloning and transferring genes, and understanding of genes increase. The expression system. Therefore, the legislative practice governing this study must keep pace. The management of GMOs is a challenge as governments conduct risk assessments to determine the possible consequences of their use before allowing commercial use of GMOs, but it is difficult to estimate the impact of the commercial use of GMOs.

 History of International Regulations for GMO Research and Development

In 1971, the first debate on the risk of human exposure to genetically modified organisms began with e. coli, a common gut microbe, infected with the DNA of the tumor-induced virus (Devos et al., 2007). Initially, individuals working in the GMOs laboratory and nearby residents were concerned about safety. However, there was a later debate about the possibility that recombinant organisms could be used as weapons. The growing debate was initially confined to scientists and eventually spread to the public, and in 1974 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) set up a reconstituted DNA advisory committee to address some of these issues.

 

In the 1980s, when genetically modified organisms were deliberately released to the environment, there were few regulations in place in the United States. Compliance with the guidelines provided by the National Institutes of Health is voluntary for industry. Also in the 1980s, the use of genetically modified plants became a valuable effort to produce new drugs, and individual companies, institutions and the country as a whole began to see biotechnology as a lucrative means of making money (Devos et al., 2007). The global commercialization of biotechnology products has sparked new debates about the patentability of organisms, the adverse effects of exposure to recombinant proteins, confidentiality, the ethics and credibility of scientists, and the role of government in regulating science and other issues. In the United States, the Congressional Office of Technical Assessment developed initiatives that were eventually adopted globally as a top-down approach to advising policymakers by predicting the social impact of GMOs.

 

Then, in 1986, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published a publication entitled "Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations", becoming the first intergovernmental document to address the use of genetically modified organisms. This document recommends a risk assessment on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approach to risk assessment of GM products has been widely accepted; however, the United States has generally adopted a product-based assessment approach, while the European approach is more process-based (Devos et al., 2007). Although there has been a lack of thorough regulation in many countries in the past, governments around the world are now meeting public demands to impose stricter testing and labeling requirements on GM crops.

 Increased Research and Improved Safety Go Hand in Hand

Proponents of the use of genetically modified organisms argue that these organisms can be safely commercialized through adequate research. There are many experimental variants used to express and control engineering genes that can be used to minimize potential risks. As a result of the new legislation, some of these practices have been necessary, such as avoiding excess DNA transfer (vector sequence) and replacing laboratory-based optional marker genes (antibiotic resistance) markers with harmless plant derivatives (Ma et al., 2003). Issues such as the risk of vaccine expression plants mixing with normal foods can be overcome by built-in identification factors such as pigmentation, which help monitor and isolate genetically modified products. Non-GMO. Other built-in control techniques include induced facilitators (e.g., caused by stress, chemicals, etc.), geographical isolation, the use of male sterile plants, and individual growing seasons.

GMOs benefit humans for purposes such as improving the availability and quality of food and medical care and promoting a cleaner environment. If used wisely, they can improve the economy without doing more harm than good, and they can make full use of their potential to reduce hunger and disease throughout the world. However, the full potential of GMOs cannot be realized without due diligence and thorough attention to the risks associated with each new GMOs on a case-by-case basis.

Related Services

Immunohistochemistry Test

Immunofluorescence Technique

Co-Immunoprecipitation Assay

HE Stain

Contact Information

Please obtain a quote before ordering, and refer to the quote number when you place an order.

Orders are typically confirmed within 12 hours.

Have a Question? Email us info@leadingbiology.com

Order Products: Order Related Products

By Phone: 1-661-524(LBI)-0262 (USA)

Online Inquiry

Name
Phone *
E-mail Address *
Service & Products Interested *
Project Description
Verification Code * captcha
No Headline Click Author Date
1 Genome Editing: Which Should I Choose, TALEN or CRISPR? 1608 Leading Biology 2020-01-03
2 TALEN - Transcription activator-like effector nuclease 2120 Leading Biology 2020-01-02
3 Microorganisms Gene Modification Services 1345 Leading Biology 2019-12-30
4 CRISPR-CAS Technology 1704 Leading Biology 2019-12-30
5 Transgenic Plants Construction 1644 Leading Biology 2019-12-30
6 In Situ Hybridization 2483 Leading Biology 2018-01-26